Who lies better? WaPo or Project Veritas

[GURPS]

What's your point?.
He is still scum bag who shouldn't be trusted.
But you would rather cry about actual Journalist's like the NYT and Wapo and defend this scumbag

that is YOUR OPINION .... you don't like the guy because he has made a career out of exposing The Progressive Agenda

Acorn
Battle Ground Texas
Common Core - About the Money NOT Educating Children
Teachers Unions
Earth Supply & Renewal Investigation
Maryland Attorney General’s Office Investigation - Maryland Deputy Attorney General Thiruvendran Vignarajah, who attempted to lure the journalist to his hotel room
NPR Investigation
Congressman Jim Moran Investigation
DEAD PEOPLE RECEIVE BALLOTS - New Hampshire uncovered election workers offering the ballots of deceased New Hampshirans to Project Veritas journalists
Planed Parenthood
The Bias of Multiple [so called] News Reporters


DisruptJ20 Exposed

In order to "protest" the 2017 inauguration, many groups teamed up for an event they were calling #DisruptJ20. The plan of this umbrella organization was to turn the inauguration into a "clusterf*ck."

Project Veritas secretly embedded our journalists deep within DisruptJ20 to uncover their plots before they could put them into action. Some of their plans were so dangerous, we took an unprecedented measure and brought our footage to the FBI, the Secret Service, and the DC Metro Police, which led to an arrest.​

and it goes on and on and on

 

[Gilligan]

You are funny.

I prefer "journalists" who don't have to lie, break in to Senators office's and edit their recordings.

But sure go scream about how Wapo is fake news and donate to this moron.

Makes a lot of sense

You prefer to be lied to by your favorite MSM sources with all their agendas..and lap it all up unquestioning. Yeah..we already knew that about you. ;-)

 

[Sapidus]

You prefer to be lied to by your favorite MSM sources with all their agendas..and lap it all up unquestioning. Yeah..we already knew that about you. ;-)

Show me where a NYT or a Wapo reporter edited their recordings, broke into a senators office or dressed up as a pimp and lied about who they were and their motivation in meetings with interview subjects.

I’ll wait.

You criticize the msm support much worse and can’t see your own hypocrisy. Truly frightenting what has become of our world

 

[SamSpade]

Show me where a NYT or a Wapo reporter edited their recordings, broke into a senators office or dressed up as a pimp and lied about who they were and their motivation in meetings with interview subjects.

They don't have to do any of that - that would be WORK. They can just MAKE SH*T UP and pass it off as true, because their customers want to hear it.
A good investigative reporter does have to bend the rules to get to the truth - they don't do that, because as I said - they no longer need to.

 

[Gilligan]

Show me where a NYT or a Wapo reporter edited their recordings, broke into a senators office or dressed up as a pimp and lied about who they were and their motivation in meetings with interview subjects.

I’ll wait.

You criticize the msm support much worse and can’t see your own hypocrisy. Truly frightenting what has become of our world

So you completely ignored the long list of Veritas exposures to erect a frail straw man instead. You are indeed a sad and ineffective little troll. But we all knew that...

 

[GURPS]

Show me where a NYT or a Wapo reporter edited their recordings, broke into a senators office or dressed up as a pimp and lied about who they were and their motivation in meetings with interview subjects.

Wow Really you thing any investigative reporter represents themselves as a REPORTER when digging into a story

doesn't use hidden cameras to record interactions
you thing PETA Volunteers state UP FRONT - we are from PETA Investigating YOUR Farm and how you treat animals
Green Peace - tells chemical companies we are from green peace
yeah not reporters - but the type of Progressives that go sneaking around lying about who they are looking for something to expose

Lying in the Name of Truth:When Is It Justified for Journalists?


You'll find a very personal take on this in a recent essay in the Los Angeles Times. The writer is Ken Silverstein, who once wrote for that paper and is now Washington editor of Harper's Magazine.

Silverstein defends his use of deception for a July story in Harper's. He misrepresented his identity "pretending to be the representative of a London-based energy company with business interests in Turkmenistan" in reporting on D.C. lobbyists who would eagerly sell their services for dubious reasons to questionable clients. Silverstein writes, "In exchange for fees of up to $1.5 million a year, they offered to send congressional delegations to Turkmenistan and write and plant opinion pieces in newspapers under the names of academics and think-tank experts they would recruit."

Silverstein's essay is intended both to defend his use of deception in reporting this story and to condemn those journalists who eschew the possibility of using some form of lying. Silverstein said he expects the targets of his investigation -- the lobbyists who were willing to sell their services -- to challenge his methods. But he was disappointed at the criticism of Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz, "who was apparently far less concerned by the lobbyists' ability to manipulate public and political opinion than by my use of undercover journalism."

Silverstein's L.A. Times essay recounts the history of the use of deception in undercover journalism and the turn away from such methods in the wake of the Food Lion v. ABC News case. Silverstein also takes a shot at the Washington press corps in general for being too timid when it comes to considering the use of deception as a viable reporting tool.

REPORTERS Lie ALL THE Time To Get A Story

 

[SamSpade]

REPORTERS Lie ALL THE Time To Get A Story

I always thought that investigative reporters HAVE to be deceitful in order to get at a story, because no one's just going to tell you.
Even Woodward and Bernstein bent the rules, for Watergate.

I suppose nowadays, journalism may consist of getting news releases, exclusive interviews, sources, *LEAKS* (which are usually illegal) - all from the comfort of a desk.
Add in a lot of opinion and editorializing, and you have a story. -30- . Print it.

A far cry from chasing down a lead or uncovering something that people want buried.

 

[SamSpade]

yeah not reporters - but the type of Progressives that go sneaking around lying about who they are looking for something to expose

They just don't like it when THEIR ox is gored.

What's telling is, they rarely dispute the content - just attack the messenger.

 

[GURPS]

They just don't like it when THEIR ox is gored.

What's telling is, they rarely dispute the content - just attack the messenger.

Yeah Sappy's whole bag of tricks ..... not only goring his ax with the reports, but exposing Progressive Lies, mis-deeds, and otherwise obfuscation

 

[Sapidus]

They just don't like it when THEIR ox is gored.

What's telling is, they rarely dispute the content - just attack the messenger.

The guy is a hack who uses crappy unethical techniques.

both the message and the content are questionable as he edits videos to show what he wants. Breaks into senators offices, lies and plays characters to get people to say what he wants them to say on camera.


He is the definition of fake news but keep complaining about actual reporters while supporting trash like this.

You don't even comprehend how hypocritical you are. Just because you agree with the orgs. he goes after you think any means are acceptable.

 

[Kyle]

The guy is a hack who uses crappy unethical techniques.

He is the definition of fake news but keep complaining about actual reporters while supporting trash like this.

You don't even comprehend how hypocritical you are. Just because you agree with the orgs. he goes after you think any means are acceptable.

Why are you bringing up Dan Rather and Brian Jennings?

 

[Gilligan]

The guy is a hack who uses crappy unethical techniques.

both the message and the content are questionable as he edits videos to show what he wants. Breaks into senators offices, lies and plays characters to get people to say what he wants them to say on camera.


He is the definition of fake news but keep complaining about actual reporters while supporting trash like this.

You don't even comprehend how hypocritical you are. Just because you agree with the orgs. he goes after you think any means are acceptable.

he keeps left wing scum like you in focus.

 

[GURPS]

The guy is a hack who uses crappy unethical techniques.

both the message and the content are questionable as he edits videos to show what he wants. Breaks into senators offices, lies and plays characters to get people to say what he wants them to say on camera.


He is the definition of fake news but keep complaining about actual reporters while supporting trash like this.

ONE Senator's Office and no breaking was involved he walked in


you describe EVERYTHING ANY Undercover Investigative Reporter does ....

 

[SamSpade]

ONE Senator's Office and no breaking was involved he walked in


you describe EVERYTHING ANY Undercover Investigative Reporter does ....

Well, worse - pretty much the so-called "editing" was done for *brevity*.
Not content. He didn't change what they said, nor did he edit it to take it out of context.

As the left has DONE - you don't have to make stuff up to cast them in a bad light.
You just have to expose them as they are. THAT is the point. If you want to make stuff up, you don't even have to leave your office.

 

[Gilligan]

Good piece on Veritas here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/11/not_all_stings_work_the_war_james_okeefe_is_winning.html

 

[SamSpade]

The guy is a hack who uses crappy unethical techniques.

Well, THERE'S a rebuttal to end it all. You don't like him. That doesn't make him wrong.
Going "undercover" - which is done all the time on TV, news, police work - heck there's even a show called Undercover Boss - involves deceit because bad people never just tell you the truth.

both the message and the content are questionable as he edits videos to show what he wants.

The ones you're mentioning were edited to make them shorter. He didn't cut and splice together sentences to change the meaning.
Frankly that's all they could fight it on, as the content itself wasn't disputed. If I record a terrorist plotting a bomb, yeah, you can bet the left will get upset
that I recorded without PERMISSION and let the terrorist go free.

No one wants to watch hours of discussion if it's not germane to the matter at hand.
If I'm undercover at a car place that is ripping people off, I can't post a half hour of us discussing financing or chatting about the Redskins.

Breaks into senators offices,

There was no break in. You're batting a thousand here.

lies and plays characters to get people to say what he wants them to say on camera.

Getting the idea of what "undercover" is, yet? It requires lying to expose people. Even police do this in interrogations.
And no one said something "he wanted them to say" on camera. THAT is why the videos are long - so people can see the full context.

He is the definition of fake news

"You keep using that word - I don't think it means what you think it means"

Leaving the White House and saying something happened that didn't happen - THAT'S fake.
Coming out of a meeting with video and showing something they don't want exposed - THAT is reality.

You don't even comprehend how hypocritical you are. Just because you agree with the orgs.

You don't know me. And typical - you're blending me together with everyone else, because the right to you is monolithic. We're not people.
If I'm a hypocrite, show it, but don't use the argument if you're just lashing out.
Look, people are bad and the public is becoming increasingly aware that the entire bureaucracy in Washington doesn't align with either side.
JUST which side they think will keep them in office.

he goes after you think any means are acceptable.

No - but the kind of means that investigative journalists actually USE? Yes. It's just that the news teams on regular networks don't WANT to expose one of their own,
whether his name is Weinstein or Lauer. They will QUASH stories if people try to put them out. This HAPPENED with these and other guys.
So people like Veritas have to do it. (No one on the left exposed Clinton during his tenure - only NOW are people decrying his behavior - twenty years too late.)

And you - and the left - don't like it.

 

[GURPS]

You don't know me. And typical - you're blending me together with everyone else, because the right to you is monolithic. We're not people.

And you - and the left - don't like it.

[not quoting your entire post to save electrons]


1. Well Said
2. But its What Sappy Does ... [Progressives in general]
3. No They Don't Like It - their hypocrisy is exposed

[this is why Clinton Administration / Democrats in the 90's so loathed Rush - he exposed all the lies and bull#### they were trying to pull]